¹ Landecker, Werner S., “Types of Integration and Their Measurement,” The American Journal of Sociology 56 (01 1951): 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² The failure of the field to seek precise conceptualization and measurement of the integration construct has been noted by many observers, including the following: Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “Comparative Regional Integration,” International Organization 22 (Autumn 1968): 855–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haas, Ernst B., “The Study of Regional Integration: Reflections on the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing,” in Regional Integration: Theory and Research, Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A. eds., (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 3–44Google Scholar; and Deutsch, Karl W., Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Garden City: Doubleday, 1954)Google Scholar.

³ The experience of the social sciences suggests that typology construction may be regarded as the most appropriate first requisite in the scientific study of any phenomena. As Grigg has noted, “Without classification it would be impossible to 1) give names to things, 2) to transmit information, 3) to make inductive generalizations. Classification is a necessary preliminary in most sciences; it is often argued that the state of classification is a measure of the maturity of a science.” See Grigg, David, “The Logic of Regional Systems,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 55 (09 1965): 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Since description must precede explanation, it follows that only after the basic types of integration have been isolated and identified by empirical procedures can theory construction proceed. By applying comparative techniques to search for the determinants that explain similarities and differences in these delineated classes of integration, scientific explanations of integrative behavior can be developed.

⁵ Hughes, Barry B. and Schwartz, John E., “Dimensions of Political Integration and the Experience of the European Community,” International Studies Quarterly 16 (09 1972): 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ For a clear, concise introduction to these issues, the reader is urged to consult Broadfield, A., The Philosophy of Classification (London: Grafton, 1946)Google Scholar; McKinney, John C., Constructive Typology and Social Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966)Google Scholar; and Sokal, R.R. and Sneath, P.H.A., Principles of Numerical Taxonomy (San Francisco: Freeman, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁷ See Nye, “Comparative Regional Integration.”

⁸ Lindberg, Leon N., “Political Integration as a Multidimensional Phenomenon Requiring Multivariate Measurement,” in Lindberg and Scheingold, pp. 45–127Google Scholar.

⁹ Puchala, Donald J., “International Transactions and Regional Integration,” in Lindberg and Scheingold, p. 128Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Bernstein, Robert A., “International Integration: Multidimensional or Unidimensional?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16 (09 1972): 404CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Social Science Department, Bendix Aerospace Systems Division, “Regional Integration in Asia: Summary Papers,” Project Regional Final Report, 06 1972, Vol. VGoogle Scholar (hereafter referred to as “Bendix”).

¹² Hughes and Schwartz, p. 264.

¹³ Cantori, Louis J. and Spiegel, Steven L., “The International Relations of Regions,” Polity 2 (09 1970): 397–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ See Kerlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research, Second Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973), pp. 456–78Google Scholar, for a discussion of validation techniques.

¹⁵ Landecker in “Types of Integration and their Measurement.”

¹⁶ Nye as cited. This formulation has been elaborated in Nye, J.S., Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 21–54Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Nye, , “Comparative Regional Integration,” p. 856Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 875.

¹⁹ Note that they are similar to the types of integration posited by Landecker in 1951.

²⁰ Nye, , “Comparative Regional Integration,” p. 858Google Scholar.

²¹ Rummel, Rudolph J., as cited in Young, Robert A., “A Classification of Nations According to Foreign Policy Output,” in Theory and Practice of Events Research, Azar, Edward E. and Ben-Dak, Joseph eds., (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1975), pp. 175–96Google Scholar.

²² This is not to imply that factor analysis is the only appropriate technique for this purpose; indeed, multidimensional scaling, hierarchial clustering, and Guttman scaling analysis would be applicable and informative. Ideally, several techniques should be employed to guard against the possibility that results are artifactual or technique dependent. For example, it is possible that multidimensional scaling may reveal single dimensions in data that factor analysis interprets as multidimensional. While we should be alert to these possibilities, variable measurement procedures and limitations of space restrict our analysis to one method in the present study.

²³ Hughes and Schwartz, p. 267; Alker, Hayward R. Jr, “Integration Logics: A Review, Extension, and Critique,” in Lindberg and Scheingold, p. 281Google Scholar.

²⁴ Winch, Robert F., “Heuristic and Empirical Typologies: A Job for Factor Analysis,” American Sociological Review 12 (02 1974): 71Google Scholar.

²⁵ While Nye's description of his category system does not specifically mention all these assumptions, it may be contended (Broadfield; McKinney) that they are inherent in any classificatory scheme and therefore inescabably operative in Nye's construct as well.

²⁶ That is, most of the exploratory work on the dimensionality of integration has been with respect to other regional systems. Bernstein and Hughes and Schwartz are exemplary. Much of the effort has concentrated exclusively on integration in the European context, for obvious reasons. The danger with this focused treatment for the comparativist is, as Thompson has aptly put it, that it prevents us from learning “which forms of behavior are ‘universally’ regional and which are peculiar to specific types of regions.” Thompson, William R., “The Regional Subsystem: A Conceptual Explication and a Propositional Inventory,” International Studies Quarterly 17 (03 1973): 91Google Scholar.

²⁷ E.g., Bendix's Project REGIONAL; Howell, Llewellyn D. Jr, “Regional Accomodation in Southeast Asia: A Study of Attitudinal Compatibility and Distance” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1973)Google Scholar; Simon, Sheldon W., “East Asia in an Era of Global Transition,” in World Politics, Rosenau, James N., Thompson, Kenneth, and Boyd, Gavin, eds. (New York: Free Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Charles W. Kegley, Jr., “Chinese Behavior in the Context of the Pattern of Foreign Policy Interactions in Asia: A Quantitative Assessment,” in Advancing and Contending Approaches to the Analysis of Chinese Foreign Relations, Roger L. Dial, ed.; Howell, Llewellyn D. Jr, “Attitudinal Distance in Southeast Asia: Social and Political Ingredients in Integration,” Southeast Asia 3 (Winter 1974), pp. 577–605Google Scholar; Park, Tong-Whan, “Peaceful Interactions in Asia: The Delineation of Nation Groups,” The Dimensionality of Nations Project, Research Report No. 32, University of Hawaii, 10 1969Google Scholar.

²⁸ Wilcox, Wayne, Rose, Leo E., and Boyd, Gavin, eds., Asia and the International System (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1972), p. vGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ I.e., when political systems, rather than interactions between states, are the object of comparison, then we probably are dealing with a subject with which valid generalization will be elusive. However, it is the contention here that foreign policy behavior is another matter. See Russett, Bruce M., International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967)Google Scholar, for a discussion of this point.

³⁰ Haas, Michael, “The Asian Way: An Operational Code of a Diplomatic Style and Its Political Achievements,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, New York, 03 1973Google Scholar.

³¹ Gregg, Robert W., “The UN Regional Economic Commissions and Integration in the Underdeveloped Regions,” International Organization 20 (Spring 1966): 208–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Singh, Lalita Prasad, The Politics of Economic Cooperation in Asia: A Study of Asian International Organizations (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Lall, Arthur, “The Asian Nations and the United Nations,” International Organization 19 (Winter 1965): 728–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Hellmann, Donald C., “The Emergence of an East Asian International Subsystem,” International Studies Quarterly 13 (12 1969): 421–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Kegley; Park; Jo, Yung-Hwan, “Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia and Japan's Role,” The Journal of Politics 30 (08 1968): 730–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padelford, Norman J., “Regional Cooperation in the South Pacific,” International Organization 12 (Summer 1959): 380–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Grant, Maigaret, ed., South Asia Pacific Crisis: National Development and the World Community (New York: Dodd, Meade and Co., 1964)Google Scholar.

³⁶ The literature expressing this sentiment is growing voluminous. Recent examples include the following: Levi, Werner, “Political Culture and Integration in Southeast Asia,” in The Challenge of World Politics in South and Southeast Asia, Levi, , ed., (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp. 63–73Google Scholar; Gordon, Bernard K., “Problems of Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia,” World Politics 16 (01 1964): 222–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brecher, Michael, “International Relations and Asian Studies: The Subordinate State System of Southern Asia,” World Politics 15 (01 1963): 213–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shizuo, Maruyama, “Asian Regionalism,” Japan Quarterly 15 (01–03 1968): 53–61Google Scholar; Cantori, Louis J. and Spiegel, Steven L., “International Regions: A Comparative Approach to Five Subordinate Systems,” International Studies Quarterly 13 (12 1969): 361–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Bernard K., The Dimensions of Conflict in Southeast Asia, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966)Google Scholar; and Modelski, George, “International Relations and Area Studies: The Case of Southeast Asia,” International Relations (London) 2 (04 1961): 143–55Google Scholar.

³⁷ Gordon, Bernard K., “Common Defense Considerations and Integration in Southeast Asia,” in Regional International Organizations, Tharp, Paul A. Jr, ed., (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1971), p. 247Google Scholar. This article is perhaps the most elequent statement of the appropriateness of conceptualizing Southeast Asia as an integrating regional system.

³⁸ Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles, International Community: A Regional and Global Study (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970)Google Scholar.

³⁹ Kegley, Charles W. and JrSkinner, Richaid A., “The Case-for-Analysis Problem in the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy,” in In Search of Global Patterns, Rosenau, James N. ed., (New York: Free Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ See Cantori and Spiegel, “The International Relations of Regions,” for a similar definition of the units comprising this system.

⁴¹ Bendix, , “Regional Integration in Asia: Data Codebook,” Project REGIONAL, Final Report-Volume III, 06 1972Google Scholar.

⁴² Howell, “Regional Accomodation in Southeast Asia.” The data may be obtained from ICPR.

⁴³ Nye, , Peace in Parts, pp. 27–49Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ ASEAN has had several of the target states participating as observers in its proceedings (Laos and South Vietnam) and has invited these and others to be members of the organization. The exact confines of the ASEAN grouping as an integrating body are therefore not definitively established.

⁴⁵ Rummel, Rudolph J., Applied Factor Analysis (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970), pp. 147–8Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Hughes and Schwartz, p. 264.

⁴⁷ Given the fact that our measures are built on single indicators and grounded on data whose validity is n o less dubious than most social science data collections, the resultant set of hypotheses should be considered suggestive rather than confirmed at this point. Such preliminary evidence should of course be subjected to more rigorous testing in future research.

⁴⁸ This finding thus challenges Bernstein's conclusion that “all available evidence indicates that international integration is unidimentional, i.e., that all of the ‘subdimensions’ are in fact highly interrelated,” Bernstein, p. 104. The evidence here fails to confirm that conclusion: factor analysis “can establish unidimensionality or disprove it” (Alker, p. 281) and our solution accomplishes the latter.

⁴⁹ Bernstein, p. 104.

⁵⁰ Nye, , “Comparative Regional Integration,” p. 859Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Alker, Hayward, and JrPuchala, Donald, “Trends in Economic Partnership: The North Atlantic Area, 1928–1963,” in Quantitative International Politics, Singer, J. David ed., (New York: Free Press, 1968), p. 288Google Scholar.

⁵² Ibid: italics added to indicate that this proposition is a finding of the present study as well.

⁵³ It might be noted that this image receives considerable support in the conventional wisdom literature regarding Asian foreign policy. That literature is replete with suggestions that “in Asia, international trade policy is foreign policy”; the implication is that there is a close linkage between the economic and political conduct of relations among Asian nations.

⁵⁴ This claim is made in terms of the analytic procedure employed here, factor analysis. Factor analysis allows the investigator to probe his data for the most economical summary of the shared variance in his data; thus, the dimensions that emerge, by virtue of the mathematical model, are exhaustive of the “statistically meaningful” factors inherent in the data set. Of course, the definition of the number of “meaningful dimensions” is partly determined by the criteria selected to terminate factoring.

⁵⁵ For an explication of this reasoning, see Kegley, Charles W. Jr, “A General Empirical Typology of Foreign Policy Behavior,” Sage Professional Papers in International Studies, vol. 2, 1973 (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications)Google Scholar. McKinney also provides an excellent discussion of this point.

⁵⁶ Nye, , “Comparative Regional Integration,” p. 859Google Scholar. Emphasis added to indicate that this view indicates a finding of the present study.

⁵⁷ Lest the reader feel that a commitment to such esoterics as the conceptualization and measurement of our dependent variable is unworthy of his energy and patience, it is useful to recall that the history of most other scientific disciplines is frequently marked by prolonged periods of exclusive attention to such “mapping” exercises. Until we can adequately describe and measure our phenomenon, we are relatively impotent in our ability to devise compelling empirical generalizations about its determinants.

⁵⁸ For a careful presentation of these procedures, see Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, D.W., “Convergent and Discriminate Validation by the Multi-trait-multi-method,” Psychological Bulletin 56 (03 1959): 81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ This is an important cannon of scientific inquiry. See Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Kegley, , “A General Empirical Typology of Foreign Policy Behavior,” p. 9Google Scholar.

⁶¹ It is important to understand what conceptual typifications are designed to do if we are to assess them on a sound basis. Nye's conception of the qualitative types of integration heuristically suggests concepts with names for communicating about integration, proposes something about how integrative behavior might be treated, and directs our observations to its presumably most relevant features. The posited types therefore postulate which aspects of integration are the most important and are subject to the most variation. Although the categories do not themselves comprise a theory, they facilitate theory formulation by providing constructs which may be speculatively linked to form hypothetical or theoretical statements (nomothetic generalizations) which if operationalized are amenable to empirical verification. Nye's construct performs these functions, we contend, in a highly useful manner.

⁶² See Kalleberg, Arthur L., “The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of Political Systems,” World Politics 19 (10 1966): 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a forceful and lucid statement of the necessity of scaling in comparative research.

⁶³ This thesis is suggested by Lindberg in “Political Integration as a Multidimensional Phenomenon Requiring Multivariate Measurement.”